Militant Islamists

[tamsmith]

Can I bring a little levity into this discussion.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

'Did the F.B.I. Encourage Would-Be ISIS Recruits in Brooklyn?'

People assert that there's a "fine line" between "derailing a plot" and "entrapment"-- but is there?

FBI Informant: "Hey there Nobody, wouldn't it be fun to shoot down an airliner?

Wrong Answer: That'd be great!

Right Answer: No.

FBI Informant: "See, the thing is, I can get you an ManPad, and you just hang out beyond the end of the runway in Queens, easy as pie, you take your pick of airplanes"

Wrong answer: Its that easy as that? I can't wait!
Right answer: No

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Russian sources?
Quote : 'Andrea J. Prasow is an American lawyer whose work particularly focuses on the rights of individuals detained in the 'War on Terror'.'
Btw, you're just well informed when you hear both sides. In a fair trial there is always a defense lawyer and a prosecutor. There's a reason for that.

Please forgive me but I am very suspicious of news sources from Russia. Why? It is reported over here that most are government controlled. Now I could be wrong.
Just because Prasow is an American does not mean she unbiased. I know of several Americans that, while not saying so out right, are very negative towards America.
As to both sides I would LOVE to get unbiased news from both sides. It won't happen though because the sides are always trying to establish their own side as valid.

[Tarkus666]

> But to get back to the point of this: You assert that somehow the "West" is to blame for imposing irrational borders on the modern state of Iraq.

> What do you imagine the rational, peace engendering borders might be?

Simply put that even though the region you describe as Ur or Mesopotamia do not remotely reflect current borders the current countries of Syria, Iran and Iraq are not reflective of the populations. Did the various tribes and clans live there? Yes but not under the Sunni Ba'ath control from Baghdad nor the current Shia control from Baghdad. We created that post WW1 because it suited our needs. Then we wonder why these groups do not get along. The reality of Iraq is that it should be primarily comprised of three distinct countries; Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Historically these groups co-existed because the geographical lines were informal until 1919 when in our wisdom we figured a Muslim was a Muslim was a Muslim so what could possibly go wrong by defining a geographical entity that did not reflect either the tribal and religious intolerance's.

Now we are caught in our lie and whether it be Bush Sr., Bush Jr. or Obama the mantra remains the same. Iraq must stay together as a country? Why? By giving the Sunni control and then the Shia we have only fostered the distrust and hatred from these groups that NEVER identified themselves are part of this collective known as modern day Iraq. We want to keep things the same because a: the US doesn't want the Shia portion to become a satellite state with Iran, Saudi Arabia does not want the Sunni portion to have to go it alone since there is little oil in their region so SA hopes for a return to the salad days when the Sunni minority could take the lion's share of the wealth and Turkey does not want the Kurd's to establish their own country as they see this as a threat to their borders.

You might notice that none of these reasons have anything to do with trying to come up with a rational solution for a fake country that we invented. So yes it is naive for the West to think that just because we want these three main groups to embrace the idea of Iraq that the population is going to have any nationalism. Instead this headstrong approach will achieve nothing but ensure that Iraq will continue to remain unstable.

We keep hearing from Republicans that before we can deal with the region we need to first identify what the problems are. That is neo-con speak for Islam = bad. They are correct in that we need to identify the problem but that means first coming to terms with the reality that just because we find a solution convenient does not make it right.

How many countries have gone through this type of change in the last 20 years and not become segmented to some historical version? Serbia/Kosovo? Russian/Ukraine? Czech/Slovakia? Yugoslavia? The list goes on of these false countries where geographical lines and not the population was the basis of the country. Given the chance the historical reality kicks in and something new emerges.

You can go on forever about how the West had nothing to do with the mess that Iraq is in right now but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny either in terms of borders, political and/or economic realities. Britain originally wanted the Protectorate as a source of oil for BP and went to extreme measures to ensure that this 'Iraq' did not have the ability to assume control of its resources. When change occurred post WW2 the US stepped in and backed a winner who would be Western friendly. When Bush Jr. demonstrated he did not understand that Al Qaeda would never be a friend of Hussein and then removed him a new winner was selected in the form the Shia Government which behaved just as badly as the previous Government because they do not believe in Iraq they believe in Shia supremacy. So they fired all the Sunni Military leaders and put in their own lackeys and now here we are trying to retrain an entire military so it can supposedly 'save its own country'.

But yes clearly the West had NOTHING to do with this?

Seriously?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

> But to get back to the point of this: You assert that somehow the "West" is to blame for imposing irrational borders on the modern state of Iraq.

> What do you imagine the rational, peace engendering borders might be?

Simply put that even though the region you describe as Ur or Mesopotamia do not remotely reflect current borders the current countries of Syria, Iran and Iraq are not reflective of the populations. Did the various tribes and clans live there? Yes but not under the Sunni Ba'ath control from Baghdad nor the current Shia control from Baghdad. We created that post WW1 because it suited our needs.

{snip}

But yes clearly the West had NOTHING to do with this?

Seriously?

Seriously, yes, you’re seriously wrong. The borders of Iraq and Iran are as ancient as anything in the world. Persia, Ur, Assyria— these are ancient, ancient entities. The heartland of modern Iraq — al Uruq— occupies the same territory that Mesopotamian civilizations have for thousands of years. That’s not a “line drawn on a map by a westerner.

You seem not to know that the West was involved only very briefly in Iraq-- Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire up to 1920, then briefly a British mandate, and then an independent nation (from 1932).

The Sunni- Shi'a division is only recently a bitter thing in Iraq, and the Ba'ath party didn't exist at the time of independence, it was formed in 1940, and didn't come to power in Iraq in until the 1960s. To blame the West for their decision in 1920 to support an Iraqi state because 40 years later someone else would come to power in Iraq, that's a bit bizarre. Sunnis and Shia revolted together against the British mandate in the 1920s; they did not demand separate states for their groups, rather they demanded the Brits out of Iraq, which is what happened.

Moreover, implicit in your statement is the misapprehension that the British knew what the Sunni Shia split was in Iraq (they didn’t, there wasn’t any kind of “religious census”) and that it would be possible to effect some other division into Sunni and Shi’a states (no such idea was suggested by either Sunni or Shi’a, by the way). Take a look at where people live (we do -- now-- have some approximate religious censuses of Iraq) and come up with your idea of how Iraq should be peacefully divided.

Here's a map of Baghdad, showing Sunni and Shi'a areas, as of 2007. Can you suggest how this should be divided?




At the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, what the Arabs wanted -- and had bargained for with the West-- was independence from the Turks.

The nation of Iraq (as well as others) was the result of this desire and this promise.

The key thing about the nation of Iraq is that it is ethnically Arab and Kurdish, but not Turkish and not Persian, and the population lies in the same place that it has for four thousand years, between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

You are a victim of a pervasive "let's blame the West" mythology, and its frequent cognate "these places are the victim of illogical borders". This is something people like to say, but you should inquire a bit deeper-- do you actually know anything about this subject? Do you have any evidence for what you believe?

It is the violent overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy, and the successively more brutal military leaders, not some “lines drawn on a map”, that has lead to Iraq’s unhappiness. As it happens, we have a good historical “control” for what happened in a neighboring Hashemite monarchy that was not overthrown— Jordan.

Jordan, burdened by those "illogical lines on a map" has done quite well. That's because King Hussein and his son King Abdullah have governed well. In Iraq, on the other hand, the Hashemite King Faisal II, was murdered -- along with much of his family-- by the military.

The military regime went from bad to worse with the rise of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party.

None of that has anything to do with the borders of Iraq, nor is it the fault of the West, which supported the Hashemites, and opposed both the revolution of 1958 and the rise of the Ba'athists in the 1960s.

The most significant dispute over Iraq's borders at the time of Independence was "The Mosul Question"-- but history has shown us that no matter how much we might sympathize with the Kurds' desire for an independent state, the forces arrayed against them were and are too strong for them to maintain it without assistance from others. The other alternative for Mosul, that it be part of Turkey, was supported by no one in Iraq, it was only the Turks who wanted it-- hard to see how that would have improved anything either.

[SoIGotTheGroov]

Originally Posted by buttsie

For everyone you deport there would be countless others with clean records to replace them

Pakistan alone could supply new recruits for ever in a day given the religious schools get them young - population of 100million+

The Pakistan army are fighting a losing battle against them

You'd have to stop tourism in its tracks given how many visitors overstay their visas



If you seriously want to put and end to the current levels of terrorism recruitment then i'd suggest starting with the dismantling of the arms industry

The 5 countries on the security council supply 75% of all arms
History says they sell to both sides in any conflict.

We wonder why theres a radical element who are trying to bring that to our doorstep

The destruction that has brought over many decades in a multitude of countries is directly responsible for the rise in the Jihadist ranks.

Its not who wields the weapon but who supplies it thats key

First, hello there and happy to be welcomed in this lovely forum. It' does not sound as a pipe dream to my ears... at all...

As a french I can tell you how I feel depressed before voting: you wanna vote for a better life for everyone, right ? not only yours, cos' it's the deal... well the deal they, politicians, promise you.

When my country sells 24 Rafale fighters and say "hourra !! victory !! we beat the 'ricans for the first time !!" to a country who kills pacific protesters and jails atheists (France is supposed to be laïc way before the Charlie hebdo killings, it started in 1905), I'm really disapointed.

When my country supports massive animal killings in slaughterhouses and industrial dairy farming (ok now you know... I'm vegan) while in the same time pretending saving the planet with our president travelling all around the world to give lessons to any Head of State possible about environment (read this http://www.theguardian.com/environme...meat-free-diet and then this http://www.english.rfi.fr/economy/20...y-farm-protest), I can tell you where hypocrisy lives: for sure in 1 of the 5 top countries of the UN security council.

Yup, problem is guns, weapons, and also lobbies, money then ! and also nationalist feeling, traditionalism, religion, anything that tear us appart (sorry, couldn't resist that quote lol!).

It's not a pipe dream to me, I was watching to a Mourad Boudjellal interview today (I'm a rugby fan) saying that you can do anything you want, we're already living in a global world: people all around the world plays the same video games, watch the same soaps, watch the same porn ! listen to the same music (I frequently speaks jazz funk music with an iranian bass player on social media, go figure !!), so yeah it's now really time to eradicate all chauvinisms and go global.

Last but not the least, my favorite quote from my favorite writer and lecturer, Jiddu Krishnamurti:

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

You can't get peace with guns, you can't get peace with religions, you can't get pace with money. History proved it too many times.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

People assert that there's a "fine line" between "derailing a plot" and "entrapment"-- but is there?

FBI Informant: "Hey there Nobody, wouldn't it be fun to shoot down an airliner?

Wrong Answer: That'd be great!
Right Answer: No.

FBI Informant: "See, the thing is, I can get you an ManPad, and you just hang out beyond the end of the runway in Queens, easy as pie, you take your pick of airplanes"

Wrong answer: Its that easy as that? I can't wait!
Right answer: No

I am always amazed how quickly the whiny ass lawyers leap onto the entrapment train. Have they forgotten about that thing called free will?

Entrapment is defined as placing a person in a situation where they feel compelled to do something they normally would not. In the scenarios you indicate above the FBI handler is merely finding out 'what these people find as a normal thing to do'.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Please forgive me but I am very suspicious of news sources from Russia. Why? It is reported over here that most are government controlled. Now I could be wrong.

Your suspicions are founded but do not forget that even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day. It is too easy to suggest that everything from Russia is always wrong. Now that said it would be better if there could be more corroborating sources but that is true of all news sources.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Seriously, yes, you’re seriously wrong. The borders of Iraq and Iran are as ancient as anything in the world. Persia, Ur, Assyria— these are ancient, ancient entities. The heartland of modern Iraq — al Uruq— occupies the same territory that Mesopotamian civilizations have for thousands of years. That’s not a “line drawn on a map by a westerner.

Let's see if we can figure this out without going in circles.

First when you suggest Ur or Mesopotamia and provide maps that clearly indicate one is only a 'speck' of Iraq and the other incorporates Turkey, Syria, middle and east of Iraq and north western Iran you make it very clear that none of those entities can mean Iraq. It is like suggesting that everyone on earth belongs to the same country since at one point there was only Pangaea. Geographically it was just a region that was either independent or parts of various Kingdoms/Empires both before and after Islam. This idea of a "modern Iraq" is not founded in geography any more than Syria or Turkey would accept the premise that historically Iraq owns part of them due to the Mesopotamia link. It is a country founded on the basis that the Ottoman Empire completely folded after WW1 and despite all your suggestions to the contrary is not based on historical geography.

Second you have to consider the populations. Current day Iraq in a post Islamic reality has nothing to do with Ur or Mesopotamia any more than Britain does the Roman Empire. The Sunni, Shia and Kurds have lived an uneasy relativism for hundreds of years but not as Iraqis as we would like to believe. Just like Russia wanted to believe that Yugoslavia was a country the reality is that given the first opportunity it segmented into what the populations found a more historically geographically acceptable version. No one in Croatia or Serbia was going to the streets demanding that Yugoslavia remain whole anymore than a Sunni or Shia felt some intrinsic need to ally themselves as Iraqi. Maybe Sunni Iraqi or Shia Iraqi but certainly not Iraqi like someone in Oklahoma feels they are American. This is what makes Iraq a country in name only since it does have that allegiance that other countries do.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You seem not to know that the West was involved only very briefly in Iraq-- Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire up to 1920, then briefly a British mandate, and then an independent nation (from 1932).

And during that phase modern day Iraq was defined and by hook or by crook, (to paraphrase the Prisoner), this geographical anomaly has been maintained despite the fact that most of the population groups do not have a link to these artificial borders. Up until the monarchy was removed the West still controlled the oil industry and when the Ba'ath party took control it was with Western support. Then the West got rid of the Ba'ath party and supported the Shia dominated Government. Now the West wants to diminish the power of the Shia majority so that the Sunni minority can have a disproportionate say in the Government which will please Saudi Arabia and in the mind of the West ensure that the Sunni's will step up the fight against the problem childs of Syria and ISIL.

Somehow you define all of this as the West having a 'minimal impact' on the country? I'd hate to see what you would define as being heavy handed especially when we add in two separate invasions. The West has been heavily involved in Iraq since 1920 for purposes of its own economic and political ends and quite often to the detriment of Iraq. Suggesting otherwise is being an apologist.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Moreover, implicit in your statement is the misapprehension that the British knew what the Sunni Shia split was in Iraq (they didn’t, there wasn’t any kind of “religious census”) and that it would be possible to effect some other division into Sunni and Shi’a states (no such idea was suggested by either Sunni or Shi’a, by the way). Take a look at where people live (we do -- now-- have some approximate religious censuses of Iraq) and come up with your idea of how Iraq should be peacefully divided.

I would concur that the British did not know but one has to incorporate equal helpings of "they didn't care". Consider how well they handled the creation of Pakistan and you start to get an idea of what happens when a morally superior country simply makes a plan without bothering to consider the reality.

Can Iraq be peacefully divided? Yes quite easily but neither the West, Turkey nor Saudi Arabia will be happy with the results. The Kurds will assume control of the land that they have inhabited for all this time and Turkey will see this as a direct threat to their border and Kurdish presence within their country. Saudi Arabia wants Iraq to stay whole so he Sunni region will continue to share in the oil revenues since their part of Iraq is a bit sparse in that respect. And the US and SA do not want to see the Shia region either join Iran or become essentially a satellite state.

Notice how none of those involved in the reasons why it is a bad idea are the actual people of Iraq? It is all external forces that seem to feel that Iraqis need to stay together as a country while the three main groups in the country are quite accepting of the idea of there being distinct regions.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's a map of Baghdad, showing Sunni and Shi'a areas, as of 2007. Can you suggest how this should be divided?

This is the type of position that has been used by the West to support any number of dictators; the solution is worse than the status quo as bad as it is. The Muslims, Croats and Serbs, (et. al), got along in Yugoslavia due to Tito being able to negotiate, assuage and threaten the population and Saddam Hussein kept the violence from the factions out of fear. Oddly enough when these leaders have lost power there have been problems but there were also solutions and not everyone will feed the need to leave specific areas but some will. There is no one size fits all solution but under the current model there is systematic repression which puts the minority populations throughout this geographic quagmire at risk. While I hold no illusions that there would not be problems the odds are far more in favour of the populations co-existing if this underlying false reality is not perpetuated.

Now there is a possibility that the train has left the station for this entire region and to that end maybe the best solution is to move to a migration of similarities. Will the Coptic Christians survive in Egypt or is it now too late? Can the Sunni/Shia minorities through the region of Iraq coexist or is there just too much baggage? It is hard to say. Croats and Serbs lived side by side for decades and overnight each side slaughtered their next door neighbours. Maybe we have simply hit a point where in some parts of the world it is no longer possible to maintain a reasonable co-existence. However the current reality of Iraq shows us that just insisting that the country remain whole despite the fragmentation is not working.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You are a victim of a pervasive "let's blame the West" mythology, and its frequent cognate "these places are the victim of illogical borders". This is something people like to say, but you should inquire a bit deeper-- do you actually know anything about this subject? Do you have any evidence for what you believe?

I am not a victim of anything. I look at the facts and the history. This is no mythology it is a long history of documented interference from a number of stances. From an invasion of Iraq in 1990 which was in response to an unjustified invasion of Kuwait to a second invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was based on lies and dogmatic belief there are simple facts. Sometimes the West has done terrible things for political or economic motivations and sometimes the West has done great things for political or economic motivations. However this 'mythology' of the West being a benign force for good is self serving apologism. We supported Hussein and the Shah despite their reigns of tyranny because it suited us. There is no mythology here just undisputed facts that sometimes the West screws up and it is necessary for us to to accept and understand when we screw up if we want to move forward.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Jordan, burdened by those "illogical lines on a map" has done quite well. That's because King Hussein and his son King Abdullah have governed well. In Iraq, on the other hand, the Hashemite King Faisal II, was murdered -- along with much of his family-- by the military.

Part of the reason why Jordan is successful lies with the fact that 92-94% of the population is Sunni. This is not the Iraqi reality. Equally Kuwait does quite well because the Government/Monarchy pays of the population. Never just one size fits all.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

None of that has anything to do with the borders of Iraq, nor is it the fault of the West, which supported the Hashemites, and opposed both the revolution of 1958 and the rise of the Ba'athists in the 1960s.

Except that it has everything to do with the West. The Serbs rail on about a battle that took place in 1389 as the foundation of their current day woes and you honestly expect that a geographical construct of convenience some 95 years ago and perpetual interference in the economy and political system ever since simply 'no perceived effect'? Nonsense. Did the West have a direct finger on the system every day since 1920? Obviously not but to suggest that it operated as a free and independent entity is without merit.

Part of the overall issue is that for those in Western Europe and especially in North America is the idea that 50 miles is a big enough space to garner that kind of hatred. 50 miles west of me lies the city of Kitchener. I cannot grasp any basis to comprehend how it could be possible for me to believe that the people in that city need a good purging. Yet East of Vienna this is the norm where clans and tribes operate as standalone entities where there is little if any collective of country. This is the root of why without force all of these countries exist as nothing more than a name and why Daesh's ambitions are particularly surprising to most in the region.

Just another faction trying to create yet another geographically independent enclave that will magically answer to the needs of their self defined oppressed. Is that the fault of the West? No but certain actions of the past have definitely contributed to this outcome being almost a certainty.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Let's see if we can figure this out without going in circles.

First when you suggest Ur or Mesopotamia and provide maps that clearly indicate one is only a 'speck' of Iraq and the other incorporates Turkey, Syria, middle and east of Iraq and north western Iran you make it very clear that none of those entities can mean Iraq.

No.

You miss the basic geographic reality. Ur, Assyria, Iraq --- all these states are Mespotamian, that is, the population lies almost entirely between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Basra, Baghdad and Mosul sit on or nearly on the population centers of these Empires. At different times, they extended further -- they were Empires, remember, so they were conquering others-- but their civilization and population always was Mesopotamian, as is Iraq's.

That was true in 2000 BC, and its true today. The desert frontiers (between Anbar province and Syria, for example) were and are irrelevant to Babylon as they are to Iraq-- only a few nomads lived there then and now. The Persian Empire is also ancient, and indeed the boundary between Persia and Iraq, the Shatt al-Arab, was fixed as the border between them (albeit unsurveyed) by negotiation between the Ottomans and the Safavid Persian Empire in the Treaty of Zuhab in 1639 (indeed, the Ottomans and the Safavids signed many more treaties, fixing other aspects of their border).

Do you blame "the West" for that too?

Moreover, as I've demonstrated with sources, modern Iraq was created from the three Ottoman vilayet of Mosul, Basra, and Baghdad.

The "lines drawn on a map" were drawn by the Ottomans, and indeed by the Abbassid Caliphate before them, and reflect very ancient patterns of civilization.

Your thesis, that Iraq is some unnatural and ahistorical creation of the West is simply wrong.
Its borders are the borders of Ottoman provinces, and the creation of modern Iraq reflected both history, and the wishes of the Iraqi people themselves. Moreover, Iraq is ethnically Arab and Kurdish, while its neighbors are ethnically Turkish and Persian, as they have been for a thousand years. The borders thus reflect ethnic realities as well.

I've provided ample documentation of this, no need to repeat it, but you might re read it.